A topic from AEG's L5R CCG Rules forum, copied for Oracle of the Void from a copy of the forum saved in October 2015, so pages it didn't save are missing. Players' names are left out; the rules officials are named. Rulings are as they stood on these dates; later rulings, the rulebooks and the Rules Archive may differ.
A player, 20 October 2007
Hi! I'm not beating a dead horse or anything here, I just want to voice an opinion and ask a specific question regarding the infamous Adeiko issue.
Mr Lund's answer here viewtopic.php?f=59&t=62695 explains in a very effective (imho) way the intended differences in timing as well as the intentions behind the card decision.
I find the clarifications in timing very helpful and the intent to prohibit reactions from keeping actions from resolving by producing effects mid-action very positive for the game. That's my opinion.
Here's the question: Is prohibiting reactions from resolving by - please excuse the word, it is the most fitting in the concept of wording and timing that comes to my mind, since said rules want players to consider an action "resolved" before its effects have been applied - "illogical" rules concepts a good way to ameliorate the situation?
Example: Enlightenment is the hardest victory condition. Per the rules, if I am not mistaken, a player can resolve 4 actions ( / 3 kihos) with delayed effects and play the corresponding Ring, even if the opponent has the ability to prevent the effects from actually resolving. His ability to do so will not matter, as the actions will be considered to have resolved when the action was announced; but the opponent will not be able to react to the effects at that time -the time of their supposed "resolution"- as they will not have been actually applied yet. Is this really the way you want us to teach the game to new players? The way to help the game become simpler, more comprehensible and "player friendly"?
Thank you.
P.S. I understand it is not a specific rules question; it relates to the way of thinking when interpreting certain rules situations as described above and the spirit in which the above situations are to be handled. I would like to point out at this point that when the question of whether Adeiko's reaction would be legal in costs / delayed effects, the immediate answer of the rules team was "yes"; the rules team has knowledge of the rules and experience of the game. These facts, combined with the impression the wording of the cards in question gives prompts someone with knowledge of the rules and experience of the game to apply the reaction to costs and delayed effects as comes naturally in the game. Perhaps this would be the way to go instead of subverting this natural reaction to -again in the aforementioned sense- "illogical' rules combinations to try to justify the opposite?
Zen Faulkes (rules official), 20 October 2007
Hi! I'm not beating a dead horse or anything here, I just want to voice an opinion and ask a specific question regarding the infamous Adeiko issue.
Mr Lund's answer here viewtopic.php?f=59&t=62695 explains in a very effective (imho) way the intended differences in timing as well as the intentions behind the card decision.
I find the clarifications in timing very helpful and the intent to prohibit reactions from keeping actions from resolving by producing effects mid-action very positive for the game. That's my opinion.
Here's the question: Is prohibiting reactions from resolving by - please excuse the word, it is the most fitting in the concept of wording and timing that comes to my mind, since said rules want players to consider an action "resolved" before its effects have been applied - "illogical" rules concepts a good way to ameliorate the situation?
Example: Enlightenment is the hardest victory condition. Per the rules, if I am not mistaken, a player can resolve 4 actions ( / 3 kihos) with delayed effects and play the corresponding Ring, even if the opponent has the ability to prevent the effects from actually resolving. His ability to do so will not matter, as the actions will be considered to have resolved when the action was announced; but the opponent will not be able to react to the effects at that time -the time of their supposed "resolution"- as they will not have been actually applied yet. Is this really the way you want us to teach the game to new players? The way to help the game become simpler, more comprehensible and "player friendly"?
Thank you.
P.S. I understand it is not a specific rules question; it relates to the way of thinking when interpreting certain rules situations as described above and the spirit in which the above situations are to be handled. I would like to point out at this point that when the question of whether Adeiko's reaction would be legal in costs / delayed effects, the immediate answer of the rules team was "yes"; the rules team has knowledge of the rules and experience of the game. These facts, combined with the impression the wording of the cards in question gives prompts someone with knowledge of the rules and experience of the game to apply the reaction to costs and delayed effects as comes naturally in the game. Perhaps this would be the way to go instead of subverting this natural reaction to -again in the aforementioned sense- "illogical' rules combinations to try to justify the opposite?
Mod note: This forum is for specific card and rules questions. This post -- which by its own admission is an opinion post -- is off topic for this forum. No more posts of this sort, please. Repeated off-topic postings in this forum (or opinions masquerading as rhetorical questions) will result in mod warnings -- particularly if they concern Shosuro Adeiko.